ClownHall columnist: A timeless argument about creation
jspa...@linuxquestions.net
-----------------------------------
If intelligent design proponents were peddling Biblical creationism,
the hostility aimed at them would make sense. But they aren't. Unlike
creationism, which denied the earth's ancient age or that biological
forms could evolve over time, intelligent design makes use of generally
accepted scientific data and agrees that falsification, not revelation,
is the acid test of scientific validity.
In truth, intelligent design isn't a scientific theory but a
restatement of a timeless argument: that the regularity and laws of the
natural world imply a higher intelligence -- God, most people would say
-- responsible for its design. Intelligent design doesn't argue that
evidence of design ends all questions or disproves Darwin. It doesn't
make a religious claim. It does say that when such evidence appears,
researchers should take it into account, and that the weaknesses in
Darwinian theory should be acknowledged as forthrightly as the
strengths. That isn't primitivism or Bible-thumping or flying
spaghetti. It's science.
-------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/jeffjacoby/2005/10/03/158910.html
J. Spaceman
Steven J.
<jspa...@linuxquestions.net> wrote in message
news:1128314628....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >From the article:
> -----------------------------------
> If intelligent design proponents were peddling Biblical creationism,
> the hostility aimed at them would make sense. But they aren't. Unlike
> creationism, which denied the earth's ancient age or that biological
> forms could evolve over time, intelligent design makes use of generally
> accepted scientific data and agrees that falsification, not revelation,
> is the acid test of scientific validity.
>
opposed to specific claims about specific features of life (e.g. the
bacterial flagellum). Even proposed falsifications of Dembski's filter
wouldn't work; showing that something with "SCI" could be produced by
undirected natural processes would merely show that it wasn't really SCI at
all (and Behe seems to come close to the same position with regard to
"irreducibly complex" structures). OTOH, ID's proposed falsifications of
"Darwinism" are generally tendentious and incorrect (from Denton's early,
infamous argument that if jawed fish are closer genetically to other jawed
vertebrates than to jawless vertebrates, this somehow falsifies the
phylogenic tree of common descent, to Behe's argument that "IC" systems
cannot evolve, decades after their possible evolution was described in a
scientific paper).
Side note: many of those actively involved in pushing ID in the schools (not
the Discovery Institute, of course, which is carefully agnostic on the
issue) do reject an ancient age for the Earth, and certainly place strict
limits on how far life forms can possibly evolve (although it's not clear,
here, how much common descent with modification Jacoby himself will accept
as the minimum consistent with the evidence and reason).
>
> In truth, intelligent design isn't a scientific theory but a
> restatement of a timeless argument: that the regularity and laws of the
> natural world imply a higher intelligence -- God, most people would say
> -- responsible for its design. Intelligent design doesn't argue that
> evidence of design ends all questions or disproves Darwin. It doesn't
> make a religious claim. It does say that when such evidence appears,
> researchers should take it into account, and that the weaknesses in
> Darwinian theory should be acknowledged as forthrightly as the
> strengths. That isn't primitivism or Bible-thumping or flying
> spaghetti. It's science.
>
This seems somewhat confused. The position that the regularities and laws
of the natural world imply a higher intelligence seems, in fact, to be a
religious position; on the one hand, no natural intelligence seems able to
create regularities of nature to order, and on the other hand there seems no
reason why a preexisting intelligence capable of so doing is more
parsimonious than the (presumably eternal and uncreated) preexistence of
natural laws themselves. Furthermore, the idea that the laws of nature are
created by God does not, in any discernable way, conflict with the idea that
life originated and evolved purely through those natural laws.
Jacoby seems to be having trouble keeping straight the claims of ID theory
(basically, that somewhere or other there are aspects of biology, and
possibly cosmology, that can't be explained by undirected natural
processes), the political position of the Discovery Institute (don't try to
teach ID "theory" until someone devises one; teach "evidence against
evolution" instead), and the position of the ID supporters in the pews and
on the school boards (common descent is an unproven bit of dogmatic
materialist propaganda). Of course, all these different positions involve
treating "Darwinism" as some sort of religious or philosophical view resting
on Darwin's authority, rather than on evidence.
>
> -------------------------------------
>
> Read it at
> http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/jeffjacoby/2005/10/03/158910.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> J. Spaceman
>
-- Steven J.
MrSpooky
is merely a corallary, I'm quite interested some other opinions on
this.
Suppose one day archaeologists found an ancient city buried in Oregon,
unlike any city we've ever seen. Apparently it was something designed
by an ancient civilization we've never encountered before.
The project leader looks at it right after the discovery and thinks,
"Wow! This is amazing! Well, let's pack up, boys. Our work here is
done."
But what about the culture? What about the art, the philosophies, the
new qualities of humanity that we could discover that are continual
inquiries in historical studies? Why discover a designer and remain
content on merely the matter of its existence, when so many more
burning questions about the qualities of such an entity? It makes no
sense to establish that an intelligent designer exists and then turn
our backs on the question of what the entity IS. It is epistemic
nihilism to make a new discovery and then draw a line like that.
One big question relevant to the Evolution/Anti-Evolution then is "What
can be inferred about the designer?" Intelligent design and other
anti-evolution postulates have many flaws, but one that is often
ignored is the scant or nonexist bits ID actually PRESENTS as
conclusions. A school of thought that celebrates ignorance and,
indeed, uses ignorance as a cornerstone of its methodology is not a
science at all.
Bobby D. Bryant
>>From the article:
> -----------------------------------
8<
> In truth, intelligent design isn't a scientific theory but a
> restatement of a timeless argument: that the regularity and laws of
> the natural world imply a higher intelligence -- God, most people
> would say -- responsible for its design.
And beyond restating the argument, does absolutely nothing more to
support it than the ancient staters did.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Bobby D. Bryant
> While this doesn't address the meat of the post here, and I admit this
> is merely a corallary, I'm quite interested some other opinions on
> this.
>
> Suppose one day archaeologists found an ancient city buried in Oregon,
> unlike any city we've ever seen. Apparently it was something designed
> by an ancient civilization we've never encountered before.
>
> The project leader looks at it right after the discovery and thinks,
> "Wow! This is amazing! Well, let's pack up, boys. Our work here is
> done."
>
> But what about the culture? What about the art, the philosophies, the
> new qualities of humanity that we could discover that are continual
> inquiries in historical studies? Why discover a designer and remain
> content on merely the matter of its existence, when so many more
> burning questions about the qualities of such an entity? It makes no
> sense to establish that an intelligent designer exists and then turn
> our backs on the question of what the entity IS. It is epistemic
> nihilism to make a new discovery and then draw a line like that.
Yes, one of the arguments that ID isn't science is the observation that
its supporters don't act like scientists.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> In truth, intelligent design isn't a scientific theory but a
> restatement of a timeless argument: that the regularity and laws of the
> natural world imply a higher intelligence -- God, most people would say
> -- responsible for its design.
In short it is the old and hoary Argument From Design. It was invalid
when first stated thousands of years ago and it is still invalid.
Given enough time and agitation a system working strictly according to
physical laws can end up looking as though it were designed.
You can always distinguish design from emergent organization. The first
can be done quickly by an intelligent agent, the second takes lots and
lots of time.
Bob Kolker
Ash
>
> In truth, intelligent design isn't a scientific theory but a
> restatement of a timeless argument: that the regularity and laws of the
> natural world imply a higher intelligence -- God, most people would say
> -- responsible for its design. Intelligent design doesn't argue that
> evidence of design ends all questions or disproves Darwin. It doesn't
> make a religious claim. It does say that when such evidence appears,
> researchers should take it into account, and that the weaknesses in
> Darwinian theory should be acknowledged as forthrightly as the
> strengths. That isn't primitivism or Bible-thumping or flying
> spaghetti. It's science.
> -------------------------------------
Intelligent design is science but not a scientific theory?
jcon
jspa...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
> >From the article:
> -----------------------------------
> If intelligent design proponents were peddling Biblical creationism,
> the hostility aimed at them would make sense. But they aren't. Unlike
> creationism, which denied the earth's ancient age or that biological
> forms could evolve over time, intelligent design makes use of generally
> accepted scientific data and agrees that falsification, not revelation,
> is the acid test of scientific validity.
>
> In truth, intelligent design isn't a scientific theory but a
> restatement of a timeless argument: that the regularity and laws of the
> natural world imply a higher intelligence -- God, most people would say
> -- responsible for its design. Intelligent design doesn't argue that
> evidence of design ends all questions or disproves Darwin. It doesn't
> make a religious claim. It does say that when such evidence appears,
> researchers should take it into account, and that the weaknesses in
> Darwinian theory should be acknowledged as forthrightly as the
> strengths. That isn't primitivism or Bible-thumping or flying
> spaghetti. It's science.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well, is it or isn't it?
-jc
Frank J
One thing is clear. Jacoby knows a lot more about FSM than he does
about evolution or the ID strategy. Unless of course he is in on the
scam. The word "Darwinists" didn't go unnoticed.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> J. Spaceman
TomS
<dhqm69$dsq$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, Bobby D. Bryant stated..."
They don't act like scientists, but they don't act like any
kind of person interested in the subject.
An artist doesn't just paint one picture, with the idea that the
one picture is all that there is to it.
A mountain climber doesn't just climb one mountain.
A stamp collector doesn't collect just one stamp.
The advocates of ID make a point, so it seems, of discouraging
any exploration once they have made their one point.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"The utmost, therefore that the argument [derived from the analogy with human
art] can prove is an _architect of the world, who is always very much hampered
by the adaptabilities of the material in which he works, not a _creator of the
world to whose idea everything is subject." Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, A627
Frank J
It makes perfect sense when one realizes what the ID strategy actually
is. One of the first rules of ID is to define terms to suit one's
argument. Then one can bait and switch definitions whenever convenient.
Of course, doing it in the same paragraph means that he is not likely
to receive a DI fellowship offer any time soon.
He is trying, though, however crudely. Note the switch from "evidence
for design" to "evidence against evolution" in the *same sentence*:
Richard Forrest
jspa...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
> >From the article:
> -----------------------------------
> If intelligent design proponents were peddling Biblical creationism,
> the hostility aimed at them would make sense. But they aren't. Unlike
> creationism, which denied the earth's ancient age or that biological
> forms could evolve over time, intelligent design makes use of generally
> accepted scientific data and agrees that falsification, not revelation,
> is the acid test of scientific validity.
How is the assertion that an 'intelligent designer' interferes in an
unpredictable but possibly supernatural way using unknown but possibly
supernatural methods with the normal and well-known processes of
evolution?
Beats me.
>
> In truth, intelligent design isn't a scientific theory but a
> restatement of a timeless argument: that the regularity and laws of the
> natural world imply a higher intelligence -- God, most people would say
> -- responsible for its design. Intelligent design doesn't argue that
> evidence of design ends all questions or disproves Darwin. It doesn't
> make a religious claim. It does say that when such evidence appears,
> researchers should take it into account, and that the weaknesses in
> Darwinian theory should be acknowledged as forthrightly as the
> strengths. That isn't primitivism or Bible-thumping or flying
> spaghetti. It's science.
Wow! So it isn't science but it is science.
I'm confused.
No, wait.
It's not I than am confused. It's whoever wrote this article.
RF
pz
jspa...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
It isn't just stupid, it's not even internally consistent.
Close-minded as the old-school creationists are, at least they stick
to their story.
I chomped away at the Jacoby article here:
<http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/jeff_jacoby_no_more_coff
ee_for_you/>
--
pz http://pharyngula.org/
Steven J.
"jcon" <cire...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128352704.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> jspa...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
>> >From the article:
>> -----------------------------------
>> If intelligent design proponents were peddling Biblical creationism,
>> the hostility aimed at them would make sense. But they aren't. Unlike
>> creationism, which denied the earth's ancient age or that biological
>> forms could evolve over time, intelligent design makes use of generally
>> accepted scientific data and agrees that falsification, not revelation,
>> is the acid test of scientific validity.
>>
>> In truth, intelligent design isn't a scientific theory but a
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>> restatement of a timeless argument: that the regularity and laws of the
>> natural world imply a higher intelligence -- God, most people would say
>> -- responsible for its design. Intelligent design doesn't argue that
>> evidence of design ends all questions or disproves Darwin. It doesn't
>> make a religious claim. It does say that when such evidence appears,
>> researchers should take it into account, and that the weaknesses in
>> Darwinian theory should be acknowledged as forthrightly as the
>> strengths. That isn't primitivism or Bible-thumping or flying
>> spaghetti. It's science.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Well, is it or isn't it?
>
better explains more of the evidence with fewer assumptions, one could, in
principle, show that a given theory is almost certainly false, without
having anything to put in its place. One could show, through science, that
mutation and natural selection could not account for certain aspects of
evolution, or even that evolution (in the sense of large-scale common
descent) had not occurred, without having any real explanation to put in its
place. Of course, what this means is that ID has two entirely separate
problems: showing that major parts of evolutionary theory are false, and
showing that some form of "creation" or "design" is true, but that it
proceeds as though doing the first would be sufficient to establish the
second (and it is inept even at the first).
>
> -jc
>
>
>
>> -------------------------------------
>>
>> Read it at
>> http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/jeffjacoby/2005/10/03/158910.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> J. Spaceman
>
Noone Inparticular
David Fritzinger
Townhall.com. It was also a featured opinion piece at the Boston Globe
yesterday. Jacoby is one of their regular columnists. That this made it
into the mainstream press is worrying, to say the least.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
Frank J
The caffeinated gerbil on meth had the longer attention span. But JJ is
much better at making word salad. ;-)
an...@sci.sci
Let's suppose our Universe is actually a computer program running in
some higher-level computer. Now consider what kind of program would be
needed:
For laws that are very regular, all you need is a very simple program,
maybe two or three instructions long, which can easily be generated
completely at random. Maybe the big computer in the sky has many
programs running at the same time, all generated completely at random,
not even natural selection, just pure chance. Most are really stupid
programs that don't generate any universe at all. A few of them
generate universes with simple and regular laws, including our own
Universe.
On the other hand, a program that anyone halfway intelligent had
written would be much larger, and more complicated. Our Universe
wouldn't have regular laws, instead it'd have whatever artistic laws
the Programmer felt like putting in His creation. (For example, x-ray
diffraction of a crystal, or structura of arms in a disk galaxy, or
patterns of leaves on a tree, or the pattern of mountaintops in an
uplift region such as Everest or the Rockies, would always show a
smiley face, if the Programmer happened to like them.) That is very
unlike the Universe we are in, thereby refuting any claim that our
Universe was written by any such Programmer.
Or a really intelligent Programmer would make laws such that life
arises only a few years after the Big Bang, instead of ten billion years later.
.